Condolences to the victims and their families. Prayers for the next ones - because based on the current realities, I predicate another "mass shooting/killing" within the next ten days or so.

(Look! I'm psychic! I can do math! 272 days since Newtown / 29 incidents of 4+ killed = average of 9.4 days! )

I *should* have predicted today's shooting, though. In the 272 days since Newtown (at the time of the post), there had been 84 incidents of "4 or more people shot" (which is the definition of a mass shooting).

CHICAGO (AP) ó Thirteen people have been shot at a park on Chicago's southwest side, including a 3-year-old boy who was in critical condition, in what authorities say was likely a gang-related shooting.

Now, who will win next Tuesday's lottery? Based on the current math, it should be a big one, with at least four dead.

With respect to the most recent victims (and appropriate condolences, of course), these "isolated incidents" are becoming so common place that the "once a month crime spree du jour" is becoming a staple of the news media.

Todayís nearly indescribable tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, where twenty-seven people, including eighteen children, were shot to death inside an elementary school, is at least the sixteenth mass shooting to take place in America this year. The death toll is now at eighty-four.

Here is a list of every fatal mass shooting thatís taken place since January 1ódefined as multi-victim shootings where those killed were chosen indiscriminately. The tragedies took place at perfectly random placesóat churches, movie theatres, soccer tournaments, spas, courthouses and, now, an elementary school. But given the frequency of these awful events, perhaps in the long view their occurrence isnít so random after allóitís predictable.

(then lists sixteen of them, ending with Newtown, CT)

Well, it was NINE MONTHS AGO - and lots of things have changed since then, right? Except they really haven't.

Over on Reddit, they have a list of 246 mass shootings (defined as "4 or more people SHOT&quot so far this year, but personally, I think a "mass shooting" should only get counted if people get killed, which brings the "number of times four or more people were killed" down to 29 mass shootings in 2013. If we think of it as "only 29 so far" instead of 246, then we only have to worry about 137 dead people, instead of 327 dead people, and we can totally ignore the 857 people who were "just injured."

The most obscene gun related killing surprisingly often doesn't make the mainstream news at all.

The only requirement is that four or more people are shot in a spree. This may include the gunman himself (because they often suicide by cop or use a gun to kill themselves to escape punishment), or police shootings of civilians around the gunman. The reasoning behind the latter being that if the shooter is arrested, he will often be charged with injuring people the police actually shot, as that is a foreseeable result of a shooting spree.

We count the number shot rather than the number killed because people are still shot by a gun whether they survive or not. The gun lobby benefits from our ability to save those who would otherwise die, even though those gun shot victims will never be the same. The NRA exports their medical costs to society which often pays the costs for the medical care of the wounded. We refuse to ignore the victims of gun violence who survive shooting sprees.

Obviously the number of "mass shootings" has nothing to do with the weapons, right? Because only a fool would think giving someone (usually a man) the ability to KILL LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE WITHOUT RELOADING was a "bad idea" -- heck, if you ask the NRA or their supporters, they would point out that knives and baseball bats kill more people, and everyone should be able to defend themselves against crazy felons with guns.

I have been an office worker since 1984. Earlier this year my workplace - for the first time *EVER* in my career - had me participate in a mandatory "Active Shooter Event Safety Training." My six-year olds have been in "school lockdown" more times than I can count to the point where we don't even notice anymore, and I don't *ever* remember dealing with that while I was growing up. Tornado drills, fire drills and pop quizzes - yes. "Mandatory School Lockdown" situations - no.

So, pardon me if I yawn through the tragic news reports of the latest one du jour. Most of them don't even seem to get any attention unless they shoot in the double digits (7 so far this year!), and the gun nuts think the second amendment gives them the right to roam local department stores with AR-15's strapped on their back (remember this thread? http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022218233), so UNTIL WE DECIDE TO TAKE AWAY THE ABILITY TO FIRE MORE THAN A FEW ROUNDS AT A TIME (and I will let the gun nuts earnestly explain why that isn't possible or necessary), instead of the breathless ratings driven television reportage, I'm going to re-watch the helpful hints in this old thread:

Just wanted to say that CHILD looks the best ever ............even today............ three days after a 7 hour operation on both of her hips to put them into sockets........... tuesday......... she got released on the time frame of a "normal child" not a medically fragile child on a vent........ she needed little to no pain meds and she is as up and about as you can get in a spica........... she looks awesome

all that have seen her over the last two years and even those who told me she would not make her first and then her second birthday were surprised!!!!

(snip) she is eating a little food and getting real drinks through her tube........ so thanks for everything and making me do what I knew best!

So, to recap, THIS MOM does all the work of taking care of her child, and she takes the time to say nice things TO ME in the middle of dealing with a child recovering from surgery.

I am so happy for her - she told me she lost count of the doctors who told her there was no hope. And I didn't even *do* anything (except running the Project, but seriously, that is NOT as much work as parenting a child with special needs, even though I probably whine more).

Awesome parents make me happy. And I cannot tell you how happy I am that this little girl is doing so well!!!

Earlier I was growling about infant mortality and measles and the impossibility of life in general. Now I am feeling hopeful again.

I told my husband, and he said "well, duh!" He didn't even seem that impressed. I think it is kind of a big deal.

Meanwhile, as the brainstorm hit, I let loose a string of obscenities because HOW COULD I NOT HAVE FIGURED THIS OUT ALREADY???

So, here it is: one of the factors we can't control for heart disease is "heredity" - in other words, if you have a family history of heart disease, you are at increased risk for it. (Duh.) Things you can control include your diet, your weight, your exercise level, smoking, etc. (Yes, everyone knows this.) But everyone agrees you can't control your family history - it is what it is.

Now, the hypothesis we have been investigating is that certain forms of neuromuscular issues, including cerebral palsy and sensory processing issues, are caused by micronutrient deficiencies either caused by prematurity/IUGR, maternal deficiency, exposure to teratogens and/or childhood absorption issues during periods of rapid growth. Bluntly, it looks like there was some confusion as to which came first in the classic "chicken versus egg" issue, and it looks like the micronutrient deficiencies occur FIRST (before the "brain damage&quot, and the "symptoms" include hyperspastic / hypotonic symptoms, developmental delays, sensory processing issues and failure to thrive (among others). More importantly, correcting these deficiencies (really easy to do and cheap - NO I DO NOT SELL THIS STUFF) for four out of five children appears to result in dramatic improvement / reduction of these issues, with added bonuses of improved cognitive and communication skills, too (and ADD/ADHD symptoms reportedly decreasing in many cases).

There is more to all of this but I am trying to explain it all in its most basic terms, which comes to this:

Nutrition matters, especially when pregnant; the guidelines include "healthy food" like spinach and eggs and lean meats NOT just because of the calories, but because of what is in them - the vitamins *and* the minerals. (But sometimes it doesn't matter what you eat - see IUGR; not trying to "blame" anyone for anything here - the baby needs what the baby needs, and if they don't get it, bad things happen.)

So I am mentally working on my presentation which I have to do soon, and I start thinking about "other applications". The kids who are improving are seeing increased strength (it begins with head/neck and trunk, then spreads to extremities). With the babies, it is easy to see because *everyone* knows the order of milestones, so when a baby *isn't* meeting them (reaching out, supporting head, sitting up/turning over, etc.) it is obvious, and an immediate cause for parental anxiety. Plus "failure to thrive" is *really* an easy thing to identify, and I am trying to put stuff together in a coherent way to show how easy zinc deficiencies can be tested, and politely point out if a child won't eat (usually zinc) and is on medications that cause problems (miralax and antacids) with absorption, then odds are good they aren't ONLY deficient in the ONE or TWO things they were tested for because they are probably deficient in a whole bunch of OTHER things too (because that is how these things work). Anyway, for the children who respond, the babies are usually quick with gaining healthy weight and milestones are great measurable, while the older children (pre-puberty) who also respond see the same pattern of bowel change/appetite increase/weight/strength/etc. When it works *really well* the "symptom" of "weak muscles" goes away. (Example: one child at age five required assistance going up and down a flight of stairs; six weeks on the protocol he was climbing the monkey bars - it doesn't work that fast for every kid, and it doesn't even *work* for every kid, but -- I digress.)

So, I am mentally working on the "other applications" for future research *if* this continues to pan out the way it looks like it is going to - trust me when I say this level of breakthrough is a big deal, and the amount of skepticism and double checking that *needs* to happen is well warranted and beginning. It can get frustrating at times, but ANYWAY --

Muscles get stronger. THE HEART IS A FRIGGING MUSCLE!!! And we know (as well documented in the veterinary research) nutritional deficits during pregnancy impact two generations down in health.

So, if "heart disease" runs in families, that probably means the "families" all eat the same types of food from the same regions (which may or may not contain all of the micronutrients required for optimal health depending on the quality of the food supply available). And we also *know* that the ability to *absorb* some of these micronutrients decreases with age / quality of intestinal flora, etc. which means the ability to *absorb* the micronutrients from the food supply is impacted, too.

Which means if we "know" there is a family history of heart disease, and someone has a "weak heart" and if micronutrient deficiency issues really *ARE* involved (because I could be wrong), then correcting the deficiency *may* increase the strength of the heart muscle Just Like It Is Doing For (83% of) My Neuro Kids.

It isn't just the calories. It is what is IN THEM that counts. Food matters - and the food your grandmother had access to may account for "heart disease" -- and *maybe* if we identify and correct these deficiencies (which can be helped by looking at "family history&quot then *maybe* we can help fix heart failure.

It may be a "duh!" moment to my husband (who has been forced to listen to this stuff for the last several years!), but I think I deserve an "attagirl."